good evening. just ahead this hour, a remarkable and hard-hitting conversation with donald trump supporter rudy giuliani. we begin, though, with two questions for the clinton campaign. was it a conflict of interest and was it criminal?

both centering squarely on hillary clinton's time at the state department and the overlap during her tenure with the clinton foundation. the foundation we should point out has been widely praised for the work it does on global health and other world problems. that's not the issue. what is, though, is whether any ethical or legal lines were crossed at the time and tonight, there are new developments on both questions, new details of a battle between the fbi and justice department over whether to launch a criminal investigation and new details of a trip a senior state department staffer took on behalf of the clinton foundation. senior investigative correspondent drew griffin reports. >> reporter: june 19th, 2012, cheryl mills, chief of staff for secretary clinton boarded a train bound for new york. for the last seven months, senate investigators have been trying to find out what mills was up to and for seven months, the u.s. department of state has refused to answer. now cnn has learned a potential

reason why. cheryl mills, then a u.s. government employee, and secretary of state clinton's chief of staff, was in new york working on behalf of the clinton foundation. a source close to the situation confirms to cnn mills was interviewing two potential candidates to lead the clinton foundation. mills would interview top level executives at walmart and the drug company pfizer. both companies huge donors to the clinton foundation and both have worked with the clinton global initiative. was mills' role in violation of government ethics rules? did she have permission from the u.s. department of state? did state even know the trip was taking place? cnn asked the u.s. state department all of these questions. this was the response. federal employees are permitted to engage in outside personal activities within the scope of the federal ethics rules, a state spokesperson tells cnn. all federal employees are subject to federal ethics laws'

and regulations including rules pertaining to conflicts of interest. vague response. it raises more questions that are not being answered, not to cnn but worse, says one watchdog group, not to the republican-led senate judiciary committee which has a right to know. >> congress has a rightful right to ask for any information that it wants to from the executive branch of government to keep track of them and the government should be turning that information over, and when you have a breakdown in that system we have a breakdown in our democracy. >> reporter: it's easy to understand why cheryl mills was trusted with helping find the next director of the clinton foundation. her relationships with the clintons goes back decades. >> i'm honored to be here today on behalf of the president. >> reporter: as bill clinton's deputy white house counsel, she defended the then president during impeachment proceedings. in 2008, when hillary clinton was running for president, mills was her senior legal campaign advisor. and when hillary clinton became secretary of state, mills left

the board of the clinton foundation and became hillary clinton's chief of staff. the secrecy about the new york trip, the dual roles played by trusted assistants, the mixing of business between state, the clinton foundation and its donors, all play into a central theme of donald trump's campaign. that politicians like the clintons use government to benefit themselves. >> these are crooked people. they have been crooked from the beginning. you look at that foundation, it's pure theft and pure crookedness. >> reporter: cheryl mills' attorney says her clients was simply doing volunteer work for a charitable foundation. she was not paid. the clinton foundation also says mills was not a paid employee. late today, clinton campaign spokesman brian fallon said cheryl volunteered her personal time to a charitable organization as she has to other charities. cheryl paid for her travel to new york city personally and it was crystal clear to all

involved that this had nothing to do with her official duties. the idea that this poses a conflict of interest is absurd. >> drew griffin joins us now. there is illegal and there's looks bad. is anyone suggesting this was illegal? >> reporter: not illegal. looks bad, maybe. certainly adds to questions about the appearance of a conflict of interest. we have no reason to believe any donations were solicited at these interviews, no deals made. it was a straight interview for possible future directors of the clinton foundation but certainly, cheryl mills is one of hillary clinton's closest aides at the state department, should have known co-mingling duties between state and the clinton foundation could raise suspicions. >> cnn is also learning fbi agents months ago had suspicions there may have been criminal activity involved with the clinton foundation but again, no investigation? >> reporter: correct. a u.s. official says fbi and top department of justice officials met several months ago to discuss opening a corruption case into the clinton

foundation. at the time three different department of justice field officers were in agreement that that investigation should be launched but according to an official, it involved a bank that was reporting suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the clinton foundation, the department of justice looked at it, according to this official, decided it seemed more political than substantive and did not pursue the case due to insufficient evidence. >> drew griffin, thanks so much. let's bring back some panel members. andrey, david, maggie. david, i want to start with you. you know the trust issue is seen as one of hillary clinton's big weaknesses. 69% of voters say they do not trust hillary clinton right now. drew was just saying at this point, no one's suggesting what cheryl mills did was illegal but given the trust issues at play, and they have been at play for years, shouldn't someone have known comingling these duties would have raised questions? >> i don't think so.

i don't think anything here that was done was inappropriate, was wrong. it was normal course of business. cheryl mills was on the board of this foundation, she voluntarily took a day off, came up here, sat in on an interview and did that on her own dime. the other two e-mails that came to light yesterday involved a meeting that was supposed to have been set up for a donor to cgi, turns out the meeting didn't even happen. not that there would have been anything wrong with the meeting. he was offering insight into the lebanese political situation. it had nothing to do with a business deal. there's no business dealing here. there's no state department action being asked for. there's no trading of money for favors at all. so i think we are just really missing the context here which is the republicans don't want to give up on this issue. there -- the group that is responsible for the release of some of these e-mails in the past few days has been suing the clintons for 20 years for all sorts of bogus --

>> that doesn't mean the e-mails aren't the e-mails. >> i think it's important to say, i'm answering the question substantively but i do think there's been a campaign of legal terrorism by this group against the clintons for 20 years. the republicans on the hill clearly don't want to let go of this. it's all they have because donald trump has nothing to offer. on top of it, for donald trump to be out there, he's really not the right messenger for this, i don't think. this is somebody who misled the press about his own charitable activities, won't release his tax returns. the clinton foundation has done more for people in one day than donald trump has done his whole life. >> we have plenty of questions about donald trump's tax returns but a lot of this is about what's on the e-mails and what drew griffin is reporting about cheryl mills. jake tapper was talking today about conversations he had with the obama administration about the early days when hillary clinton was coming on as secretary of state and what the administration said was they were going to be scrupulous checks here to make sure that there was no conflict, no

overlap here. again, the idea is at a minimum, are these lines blurry. >> look, i would need to re-read the memorandum of understanding they signed to know specifically what it covered and should have earlier. so i'm not clear that this actually violated the spirit of anything or even the declaration of anything but you are correct, i was thinking about this just now, this did speak to the broader concerns the obama administration had not just about the fact that the clintons have been political adversaries but also that they came with a certain set of circumstances and their own background. look, you are dealing with a potential president who is married to a former president who was a secretary of state, where they have this large charitable organization that also does employ people who are very close to them and then also does charitable works. there is no map for this. but the argument of their critics is you do everything you can to avoid even the appearance of and this is where this ends up becoming an issue. david i think has a point,

though, where donald trump is -- republicans are arguing that he's not a great messenger for this issue. less because of the transparency piece and more because he isn't even focusing on it. he's overshadowing it with other stuff. >> what about that? should donald trump be focusing on this and insofar as he does talk about it, is he talking about it in the right way? funny the clinton foundation which is largely a charitable organization, the clinton global initiative is being demonized in and of itself. >> this is a missed opportunity. look, hillary clinton talks about job creation. the only job she's created is lawyers for the past 40 years. she's been in court more than perry mason. it's just a continual story after story, year after year, that there is no line they are not willing to cross and they have so many friends in government that they get a pass on everything. anybody else would have been in jail by now. it's not like it's this one story. it is year after year. travelgate, whitewater. you can go through the litany of

years of this stuff just following where they looked out for their friends, got them government contracts, it's just one after the other. we continue to see it happening. this story isn't even pushed by republicans. the news dug this up. >> judicial watch is a conservative group and loves digging this stuff up. but i take your point. you talk about the history there during the break, i'm sure you will have a lot to discuss. thanks so much. next up, rudy giuliani speaking out and you will want to hear what he's saying about donald trump's controversial claim which he repeated yet again tonight that president obama is quote, the founder of isis.

if you have moderate to severe ulcerative colitis or crohn's, and your symptoms have left you with the same view, it may be time for a different perspective. if other treatments haven't worked well enough, ask your doctor about entyvio, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio works by focusing right in the gi-tract to help control damaging inflammation and is clinically proven to begin helping many patients achieve both symptom relief as well as remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. while not reported with entyvio, pml, a rare, serious brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection, experience frequent infections, or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio. if your uc or crohn's medication isn't working for you,

ask your gastroenterologist about entyvio. entyvio. relief and remission within reach. if you'try clarispray.emes to escape your nasal allergies. new, from the makers of claritin. and nothing is more effective at relieving your sneezing, runny nose and nasal congestion. return to the world. try clarispray today. what if we made a ...you had to seek it out... ...but easier, like taking a left where you usually go right... ...and if finding that paint... ...made you beam with pride...

...is it still paint? benjamin moore. paint like no other. schwarzkopf presents color ultîme. a model needs vibrant hair color to light up the runway. its color blend formula locks pigment in for brilliant, vibrant colors.

discover runway colors that last. color ultîme, developed with claudia schiffer. from schwarzkopf. he has been called america's mayor and a lot of new yorkers in the wake of september 11th were very proud to call him their own. since then, rudy giuliani has run for president and these days is a vocal donald trump supporter which made him more controversial than he was back when he helped everyone get through the incredible trying time for the city and this country. this morning he sat down with chris cuomo to defend donald trump and what donald trump has been saying. quite a conversation. this is part one. >> former new york city mayor rudy giuliani, an obvious donald

trump supporter. donald trump just gave an interview to cnbc where he touched on some of his feelings about isis and the connection to president obama and hillary clinton. >> he was the founder, absolutely the founder. in fact, he gets, in sports they have awards. he gets the most valuable player award. him and hillary. she gets it, too. i give them co-founder if you really looked at the speech, i think you probably did. but him and hillary get the most valuable player award, having to do with iraq and having to do with the isis situation or as he would call it, isil. he calls it isil because nobody else does, probably wants to bother people by using a different term and whether it's more accurate or not. >> with all the legitimate angles of attack on the current state of play with isis in the united states, why go the route of saying that president barack obama founded isis? he didn't found isis.

then he says isis honors obama. isis doesn't honor obama. why say those things? >> first of all, i think what he's saying there is legitimate political commentary. legitimate political -- >> it's not true. >> well, it is true in the sense that before obama, isis was an almost unknown small little organization. he even called it the jay vee. totally wrong. here's why it happened. because he withdrew the troops from iraq. general petraeus had secured the eastern part of iraq. it wasn't in turmoil. it wasn't in revolution. it wasn't breeding terrorists. he had gotten the support of the sunni tribes. when we pulled out and the obama administration and our secretary of state were unable to get a security of forces agreement for our troops, that's when isis formed. >> that's a legitimate argument to make but he doesn't make that argument. he says the guy's a founder.

he doesn't make a legitimate argument about the second amendment. he says maybe you guys can go and do something. he makes a joke that winds up becoming a story. >> it wasn't a joke. it wasn't a joke. >> you're not saying he had serious intentions about encouraging second amendment people to do something bad? >> of course not. no more than hillary clinton had eight years ago when she said she was going to stay in the race because remember, a candidate was assassinated. >> knows what she did after she said that? she apologized. >> because she was wrong. >> why didn't he apologize? >> he wasn't wrong. >> how was he not wrong? to say people with the second amendment could do something? >> he wasn't saying that. he was saying don't vote for her. 's it's the clinton spin machine. >> i'm not part of the clinton spin machine. >> you accepted it. >> the context, i accept. he didn't say during the election. he said if she picks the judges it's over, you can't do anything. well, maybe you can. that's after she's elected. you only pick judges if you're president. that's not about voting. >> let's play lawyer in plain

language interpretation. well, maybe you can. can be a reflection on the thought you had before which is well, maybe -- >> you know what the problem is. why have to explain what comes out of the man's mouth every two second seconds? >> because you don't give him a fair shot. you take his words and parse them and take them apart. i was on the plane with him when they called and said they are accusing you of saying kill hillary clinton. he said what, i didn't say that. >> he didn't say that. you're right. i never said he did. >> he said -- i said don't vote for her. >> he said something clumsy that was open to misinterpretation. >> if you want to misinterpret it. >> the people behind him didn't get the message. >> the guy behind him had stroked his chin even before he said it. i looked at the tape five times. >> i looked at it, too. he also looked at his wife and makes a face, oh, can you believe that. >> you don't know what he said. how about he said wow, we can go vote. >> he did not say that. he did an interview on cnn yesterday where he said i can't believe he said it. let's play what trump said for

everybody else. it shouldn't be a legal argument. here's what trump said. >> hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the second amendment. by the way, if she gets to pick -- if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. although the second amendment people, maybe there is. i don't know. >> although the second amendment people, maybe there is could mean you can vote against her. that is exactly what he meant. that is exactly what he meant. >> it was open to interpretation. >> if you want to accept the hillary clinton, the first people that put it out because we got it from them, the first people that put it out, i got a call on the phone, was from the hillary clinton spin machine. then all of you jumped on it and it was the biggest story yesterday. >> first of all, i don't think that he was inciting violence but it's part of a pattern. he does this all the time. >> it's part of your pattern. >> no, i don't control what comes out of his mouth.

the man has blacklisted me. he won't come on this show because he doesn't like answering questions about what he said. >> chris, chris, it's a pattern of the press exaggerating what he says. yesterday we get e-mails that demonstrate what i have been saying for four months that the clinton foundation is a fraud, the clinton foundation to me is a racketeering enterprise and the state department was a pay for play organization. >> the e-mails that came out, we have covered here just as much as anything else. we are covering it. doesn't mean this didn't happen. >> why wasn't she being investigated? de blasio is being investigated in new york city. >> i don't control who's investigated. i don't control who's investigated. my job is to cover -- >> we are covering for the third day -- >> he says the media's doing this to me, the media's rigged. you think my coverage is rigged? >> no, i don't think yours is. i think a lot of coverage is rigged. >> how is it rigged? this comes out of his mouth and you have to apologize for it. >> i don't have to apologize. >> you come here and explain it, he could have meant this. >> i'm telling you he didn't say words of violence. >> he didn't say go out and vote

either, did he? >> no. but you say things a lot of different ways in politics. you talk for a hundred hours so you say things a lot of ways. i was a lawyer. i argued in court. sometimes when i wanted to make a point, i might say somebody is the founder of something when the guy is the person who helped to enable it. >> you had trouble with the media when you were mayor, sometimes you kept people out of press conferences, you never said the things he does. you have never said things in front of a crowd that had them start chanting lock them up about the media. calling reporters liars when he knows it's not true. >> for which he steps back and says -- >> katy tur from nbc had to be escorted to her car by secret service because the crowd turned on her because he pointed at her and said she's a liar, remember that, she's a liar. the president of the united states? >> look, the coverage is not fair. if you can't see that, i can't help you. >> no politician likes the media. no politician says the media is

fair to them. that's how you know you're doing your job. >> nobody, nobody, nobody brought up hillary's comments about bobby kennedy. >> what are you talking about? it's all over the place. it's all over the place. >> no it's not all over the place. not three days, front page of the newspaper. front page of the "times" didn't have the pay for play scandal. it had three articles on donald trump all negative. >> every outlet is different. i don't work for the "new york times." we have been covering it consistently. >> and, and, and "new york times" failed to point out in any kind of highlighted way the fact that a terrorist and the father of a terrorist was sitting behind hillary clinton and they failed to ask the question what attracted him to her. what attracted that taliban supporter -- >> what attracted mark foley to donald trump? >> i don't know. lots of questions were asked about that. >> not as many as asked about the orlando father. >> he was asked about david duke, who he never met. >> you don't think that's a legitimate question? >> hillary hasn't been asked

about the father yet. >> that's not true. they have been all over the campaign asking. >> her answer was thank you. >> rudy, you just said she hasn't been asked. the answer is that's wrong. she has been asked. you know what i'm saying? i understand why you support him. i get it. but you apologize and defend him. i think it's putting you in an awkward situation. >> it isn't. not for me. >> you're right. you don't apologize. maybe you should. might be more honorable thing to do. >> what he meant was -- >> if you're saying it's on the media, that's not lying but it's also not accurate, right? i'm not saying it's -- but it's wrong. >> the media took words that were not violent words and the media interpreted them as violent words. those words are not violent. >> not just the media. other people interpreted them that way and why? because of the pattern. because of the pattern. this is what the man does. he says things that are either casual or hyperbolic to impress

a crowd, then they go too far and he refuses to apologize and blames the media. it's happened at least ten times that i can name right off the top of my head. >> hillary clinton is trying to paint a demonic picture of donald trump because on the record she can't get elected because she was engaged in significant criminal activity. the e-mails, we know about. >> she is beating him in the polls, some would suggest exactly because of this behavior. that he should be winning right now, based on the mood of the country, but for his own temperament and actions, what comes out of his mouth. >> i have to tell you, whatever the past was with donald trump, and whatever he said in the past, that day, what he was talking about was voting and what the clinton machine and the media turned it into was violence. he didn't say words of violence. >> you know what you would have said if i asked you this question? if i said to you you know what the suggestion is you thought, you know what you would have said? god forbid. i would never suggest that to people. i don't want anybody to do anything violent to anyone, let

alone hillary clinton. i don't want anybody to believe that, i didn't mean it, i'm sorry if someone took it that way, let's move on. that's what you would say. why doesn't he say that? >> people are different. they can say different things. he told the truth. >> but it comes across like he enjoys, or he thinks he benefits from, the anger. >> he wasn't trying to create anger. in one way he was. he was trying to create a feeling among second amendment people you got to keep her out of office because if she puts a justice on the court they reverse -- >> she has actually said she doesn't want to reverse heller. and what? what? >> i believe that just as much as i believe she was in favor of the pipeline and now she's against it. if -- i would bet you anything you want that she puts a supreme -- >> he said she wants to abolish the second amendment. we both know that is impossible. >> what he means by that is she wants to interpret it in a way that abolishes it. >> if he wins, if he becomes

president of the united states, is that going to be your position, is that he says things and you will come on and say what he actually meant? isn't that part of the job, knowing how to use language in a way that doesn't confuse everybody? ' >> that doesn't confuse anyone. she will effectively abolish the second amendment. if you reverse heller -- >> she says she doesn't think heller should be reversed. >> i think if anybody believes that, i told you, they believe that she legitimately changed her mind over the pipeline. >> what does one have to do with the other? >> what it has to do with it is that nobody covers her in the same way that he is covered. her flip-flop on the pipeline got one story, one time, not three days of coverage. >> who says more things that confound reason? donald trump or hillary clinton? >> hillary clinton. >> on a regular basis. >> on a regular basis. >> tapes come out of the man obviously playing his own p.r. machine, he says it's not me. the star of david thing comes out, he says it's a sheriff's star. why not just own things, say

they are a mistake, move on? move on? >> some things he has said were a mistake. >> what? what? one thing. tell me one thing he's apologized for. >> he said it was a mistake, the things he said about john mccain. he said that john mccain was a hero, he should have acknowledged that, he should have acknowledged his heroism and public service. he did it five months ago. he did it two months ago and he did it a week ago. >> that's the one example you have? i don't remember him saying, by the way, obviously we will check, i don't remember him saying i apologize for what i said about john mccain. >> i don't remember him saying i apologize. i do remember him saying -- >> what does that tell you? wouldn't you if you said something so insulting about a veteran? >> i would say it was a mistake. >> you said i like guys that don't get caught, you wouldn't apologize? i don't know if you would ever say that. >> maybe i would if that were the proper circumstance. you asked me where is the time where he owned up to a mistake. he owned up to a mistake.

>> all the times that he doesn't, what does that mean to you? why doesn't he do it? all these situations would go away. he wouldn't come on. he won't come on this show. >> he won't come on because honestly, you keep saying this over and over again, the press gets so upset and very defensive. your coverage, i don't mean you, the press' coverage of him is so unfair compared to the press' coverage of the pay for play secretary of state who revealed e-mails that put the national security of this country in jeopardy. that is a massive scandal of huge proportion. >> i'm not disagreeing with you about the need to cover it. >> rather than fighting over language and what language -- >> look, by the way, i think that you are right in terms of the strategy here. that's why i'm asking you about the strategy. he could be talking about the e-mails. instead he's defending what comes out of his own mouth because he won't just own it. >> let's try one other way. what he said was certainly not

criminal. what she did with the clinton foundation and all the favors the state department did for hundreds of millions of dollars is to me clear violation of the conflict of interest law and i would be investigating her right now as a racketeering enterprise as i did a lot of wall street people. >> if it's investigated we will cover it. >> i'm the person who helped to contribute -- >> we cover it now and we would cover an investigation. but there is no investigation. >> there are allegations coming out day after day, e-mail after e-mail. >> we cover them. they come out of this outlet. >> not with the same vigor, not with the same tremendous emphasis, not with the same amount of time that you spend on one little thing that he says that -- >> it matters. >> why not accept his explanation? >> he didn't give one. >> yes, he did. >> no. he said the media is rigged, they twisted my words, this is

terrible, they are terrible. >> he said this is what i meant. what i meant was they should vote against her. >> that's just not what he said. >> but he did say that. he said i meant they should vote against her. >> he said i meant they should vote against her. he didn't say go vote against her. he said something that was open to interpretation. that's what started all of this latest round. >> everything i say is open to interpretation. any words i use. >> that's why you have to pick your words carefully which you did as an elected leader, because people are going to parse them. if you are president of the united states they are going to do it more than anyone in the world. >> what's wrong with those words? what's wrong with those words, you can do something about it? if you assume that the man is not there talking about violence. he used no words of violence. >> true. but in the pattern of the things he said before it raises a question. it raises a question. it just does. >> you know what? there's much more of this interview to come after a quick break. the conversation turns to donald trump's tax returns and more on

hillary clinton's e-mails. fall in love with a new daily fiber. new mirafiber from the makers of miralax. it's the only fiber that supports regularity with dailycomfort fiber. so unlike others, mirafiber is less likely to cause unwanted gas. love your fiber. new mirafiber. what comes to mind when you think about healthcare? understanding your options? or, if you're getting the care you need? at aarpadvantages.com, you can find helpful information about healthcare options. leaving you more time to think about more important things. like not having to think about healthcare at all. surround yourself with healthy advantages at aarpadvantages.com/health.

farm fresh ingredients, step-by-step recipes, delivered to your door for less than $9 a meal. get $30 off your first delivery blueapron.com/cook. schwarzkopf presents hair in 30 minutes? our most caring color collection: keratin color with keratin-care-complex. formulated for full gray coverage and up to 80% less hair breakage. ready to rejuvenate your hair? keratin color. from schwarzkopf. if you'try clarispray.emes to escape your nasal allergies. new, from the makers of claritin. and nothing is more effective at relieving your sneezing, runny nose and nasal congestion. return to the world. try clarispray today.

callinall providers.rs. all self-motivated self-starters. drive with uber and put a dollar sign in front of your odometer. like this guy. technically i'm a cook. sign up here. drive a few hours a day. make $300 a week. actually it's a little bit more than that. that's extra buy-you-stuff money. or buy-them-stuff money. calling all early risers, nine-to-fivers and night owls. with uber-a little drive goes a long way. start earning this week. go to uber.com/drivenow clicking around and start saving at hilton.com book direct... and get the lowest price online

'. right now the rest of chris cuomo's interview with trump supporter, former new york city mayor rudy giuliani. before the break, chris pressed mayor giuliani on the way donald trump has been going after his opponent saying she's the co-founder of isis along with president obama and that maybe second amendment people, his words, can do something about her. the former mayor defended donald trump and attacked the media. kicking off part two, why won't

donald trump release his taxes. take a look. >> his decision on another front, the taxes. are the taxes a big deal? no. but his decision to not release them now becomes a big deal because his argument about hillary on one level is what? transparency. you can't trust her. she's not going to be open with you. it's hard for him to make a compelling case when he's doing the same thing with his taxes. why not advise him to just release the taxes? >> whatever i advise him is between him and me. >> true. but it's a question. >> okay. that's a personal decision. all the things she's hiding, given all the things she's destroyed, the fact he's not releasing his taxes when you have a financial disclosure form which describes a great deal of his holdings -- >> except the financial disclosure form rewards exaggeration. >> i grant you it's an issue. but it is nothing in comparison to the 35,000 e-mails that she destroyed -- >> except we had a dozen

different official investigations of that issue. right? it's not like we ignored the e-mail situation. she gave 11 hours of open testimony on it. so it's not like nobody knows anything about it. >> sat down inappropriately with the attorney general of the united states three days -- >> it never got to her. the head of the fbi, who you know and respect, came out and said i don't see a case to be made here. she was extremely careless -- >> he didn't say i don't see a case to be made here. >> of course he did. otherwise he would have referred a case. >> first of all, it's not his job to make a determination about whether -- >> but that was his conclusion. >> his conclusion, his conclusion was she lied on a number of occasions, his conclusion was that she was extremely careless in the use of -- >> right. but he didn't say the case of a crime. >> extremely careless means grossly negligent which violates the law. >> then he would have referred the case for prosecution but he didn't. >> as his former boss, i believe jim comey's reading of the law is completely wrong. i think it is highly suspicious

that on the day that he said that, bill clinton was on an airplane with hillary clinton. i cannot believe -- >> you think james comey was compromised in this situation? >> i don't know who was compromised. >> you know him very well. that's a very heavy, heavy allegation. >> i'm not saying james comey was compromised. he might have told the attorney general or the deputy attorney general. i don't know who he told. >> told them what? >> his decision. chris, you know politics. are they going to put clinton on the same plane with the president of the united states on the very day that the director of the fbi is going to give his report on this if they think he's going to say -- >> who's they? the justice department? >> the white house. >> the white house didn't put clinton on the plane with the attorney general. clinton made that happen. >> no, no, you're not -- >> maybe that was inappropriate. >> you're not getting my point. on the day james comey made his decision, the president of the united states was going to appear with hillary clinton.

if the white house knew that there was the possibility that there was going to be an indictment, the president wouldn't be there. i worked in the white house. >> how does that undermine the confidence in comey's decision? >> it means there was a leak of it. >> so what? even if you're right, so what? >> you shouldn't leak it. >> but that doesn't mean his judgment was impaired. i'm saying do you think comey made a call that was influenced by somebody else? yes or no? >> i don't know the answer to that. i can't make the charge. i believe he made a grossly -- >> but he made a call this there was no crime. he looked at it for a year, he had his guys looking at i. >> he shouldn't have been looking at it for a user. should have taken three months. >> i don't understand why you are trying to undermine the confidence in the man's decision. >> i do undermine the confidence in -- i disagree with his decision. >> you can disagree but it doesn't mean he made it for bad reasons. >> i think it was an embarrassment to the fbi. >> there's two different things. you can say he got it wrong. fine.

but if you say and why did he get it wrong, now you are going down a path of speculation that undermines the confidence in a system that is a very dangerous thing to do if you don't have any proof. >> i'm not -- i believe his decision -- >> was wrong. >> no. grossly inadequate. >> fine. that's your opinion. you don't think he made a decision for bad reasons? you don't have any proof of that? >> i have no proof of that. >> that's the question. >> i'm not suggesting he made it for bad reasons. >> because it sounded like you were. that's why i'm making you clarify. >> i will clarify it. i believe the decision was so wrong, i cannot understand how he came to that conclusion. i don't believe he did it for bad reasons because i think he's a good man. but the decision perplexes me. it perplexes those who worked for him. it perplexes numerous fbi agents who talk to me all the time. and it embarrasses some fbi agents. i can tell you all that. why he made it that way, i can't tell you. >> that's right. that's where it should be left. that's not what trump says. >> he laid out a case -- >> trump says oh, it was something wrong there.

>> you read that report to the last two pages, he laid out a case for a perfect prosecution under a statute that has a grossly negligent standard -- >> as you well know, again, everybody should know this about you, you were a prosecutor, you were a very good one, federal prosecutor. that statute is almost never used and when it is, they always look to show intent. they go way beyond gross negligence. >> as far as i can tell, in the research you are able to do of cases that -- that statute, there's never been a violation of it at the level at which she violated it. her violation was incredible, meaning thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands -- >> none of that can be denied. i'm saying the guy looked at it and said it wasn't a crime. >> under similar statutes, under similar statutes for which she could have been prosecuted, people have been -- >> when they have been able to show they either lied to the fbi or they knowingly did what is

specified. >> she did lie. >> no. >> she lied to the public. >> not to the fbi. and one's a crime, i'm taking it -- one is a crime, one is not a crime. >> but it's evidence of intent. lying to the public is evidence of intent by the way. >> but you would have to lie to the fbi to trigger the statute. i know we are in the weeds. what i'm trying to say -- >> not to trigger that statute. >> what i'm trying to say is you have to be careful about what you insinuate about these situations. trump does that a lot. it undermines confidence in him which is why, by the way, you get this open letter of the -- of 50 national security experts from the gop who come out and say this guy can't be president, and you kind of brush it aside and say they have it wrong. mike chertoff is on there, tom ridge is on there. these are men you know and respect very much. you just brush aside their assessment? why? >> i believe they're wrong. they don't know trump the way i know trump. they don't realize and understand what trump can do for the country that hillary clinton cannot do. they are not assessing properly

how hillary clinton will appoint a supreme court that will destroy a lot of the rights that we have and make the next president -- >> they are talking about national security. they are talking about foreign affairs. how do they not know? what do you know that they don't? >> i know him a lot better than they do. i also assess maybe more strongly the fact that i don't want a president who has been grossly negligent with the handling of national security. i think that is a lot more serious than all these little arguments we're having about what trump meant about this and what trump meant about that and by the way, i have put people in jail for handling national security information improperly. people that did far less than she did. and i have done cases that are 10% of what she did with the foundation -- >> it went through the system and that's it now. >> that isn't it. i can still draw my conclusion. >> of course you can but i'm saying in terms of the idea that there's something more there, it

is what it is. they went through it. they did the investigation. comey had his finding. you had 11 hours of testimony. it's baked into the voters. that's it. that's what it is. 27% of people think she's telling the truth about it. obviously it's sunk in to people. >> worst case for both. you get a choice between a secretary of state who was grossly negligent in handling national security and a president who says things that you find ambiguous and -- >> no. that's not the proposition. here's why. you're right, i will give you the one part of the equation. that's your opinion. i'm not saying it's accurate. >> no, no, that's not my opinion. that's what comey said. comey said she was -- >> extremely careless. >> if we want to use -- >> extremely careless. >> which is a legal definition of gross negligence. >> look, we both know -- no. it would be an extrapolation. you picked those words on purpose to not echo what's in the statute. >> go read the cases and the definition of gross negligence. it's extremely careless is one of the four definitions. >> be that as it may, what's on the other side of the scales,

not of justice in this case but presidential politics -- >> comey knows what i said. jim knows the definition of gross -- because he sat through enough trials in which gross negligence has been defined. >> look, it came up as soon as he used the words. i get it. the conclusion is, though, he didn't see a case to bring forward. on the other side much tof the though, is donald trump who not once, not twice, but many many times undermines confidence in his ability to send across a clear message that is not inherently hostile or divisive. the man welcomes chants of lock them up about the entire media. do you think that is healthy for a democracy? to have a president of the united states that encourages people to turn on its media? >> first of all -- >> would you do that? >> if you treated me the way you are treating him, you are darned right i would, and i did, when -- you think i was treated fairly as a republican mayor in new york city? >> i think no politician states

they are treated fairly. >> uh-huh. you treat republicans differently than you treat democrats. you can't live up to it and you do. you do. it's just the truth. it's been true -- >> it is your truth. >> you think it's my truth. it's absolutely true. as the republican mayor of new york city, i knew i had -- i knew the "new york times" would, if i raised my voice this much, would say mayor storms out of conference. >> pop said the same thing, they would call him a hot-headed italian, help to keep his temper down and he was no republican. he was no republican. i get why politicians don't like the media. >> not that your dad was hot-headed. it is true that democrats get bad coverage but you look at any objective analysis, the negative coverage of republicans is about three to one to the coverage of democrats. >> i don't know where that number comes from. >> from studies. rn >> i'm only responsible for what i do. >> i'm on your show.

rmg >> i know. >> because you are a fair man. >> i respect that. >> i don't think the overwhelming majority in your profession is fair. >> i get what you feel. i'm just saying it's not worth our time right now. >> well, it is. >> no, it isn't. because i can't have a media conversation. there is so many outlets with different people with different agendas. >> the american people have to make their own decision about this uninfluenced by a media that is substantially biased against donald trump. >> not all media is the same. i will say this to you again. >> not talking about you. >> donald trump causes his own coverage cycles by what comes out of his mouth. we do not have to hunt for situations. >> you did in this one. >> he presents them. because of an established pattern and an inability to ever apologize for anything he says. >> okay. if we grant all that is true, i will take that over an attorney general -- >> that's your decision. that's the voters' decision. >> you're asking about me. my decision. i would take that over a secretary of state who is

extremely careless about the use of national security information on thousands of occasions against a secretary of state who turned the state department into a pay for play organization. >> that's your interpretation. >> you're asking my view. >> i know. just to clarify. because you are very compelling. i want to clarify for my audience. >> why do you have to clarify? >> because there's no finding she turned the state department into a pay for play organization. you have e-mails out there right now that suggest that people from the foundation were talking to people in the state department about meetings and trying to find jobs for people. >> how about a meeting for a guy with the american ambassador to lebanon, the guy is a convicted money launderer and he makes a $1 million to $5 million contribution to the clinton foundation' -- >> the ambassador says the meeting never happened. let me ask you about something else. the debates. you are going to negotiate for trump. i would have thought trump would jump at the chance to have as many debates with clinton as possible. >> he does.

>> doesn't seem like that. he came up with this story about the nfl saying they were unhappy with some letter that never existed. >> donald trump is going to participate in all three debates and the negotiations are going to be about as they always are, and have always been, about how we do it. >> so he will do all three? these stories about he's only going to do one, you don't buy it? >> he will do all three debates. the negotiations which the federal commission has always allowed between -- >> absolutely. >> -- is going to happen about, i don't know, how big is the podium and do you wear red ties or does she wear a blue suit. >> all those things. >> all that crazy stuff they negotiate over, how much water do you put, can you take notes, can you bring notes out with you. those negotiations have to take place. he's told me two weeks ago he wants me and paul manafort to negotiate the terms of the debate. he's told us the things that are critical to him. none of them have to do with not debating. there are things that he thinks

are important to him and fair to him. none of them are unusual or unpress didn'ted. they are things so i see no reason why there are not going to be debates. i believe debates are critical. i believe he needs to go above the press and talk directly to the people. there was one when i was mayor, "newsday" figured out my strategy. after 12 months of being viciously criticized by the "new york times" in particular and the liberal media in new york, they figured out my strategy. i was on radio and television so often that i was delivering my own message to people because i didn't want the "new york times" saying "the angry mayor, the mean mayor trying to take people off welfare and requiring them to work." >> you'll always be your best advocate. there's why we offer this

platform to all the candidates, including trump. i would encourage you to encourage him to come back on. >> i'm going to encourage him to come back on this show. >> good. >> because he is his best advocate when he gets to explain it for himself. >> i have said that myself. >> and air trump should be part of the strategy. >> "new day" is an open forum for all relevant people. >> it's called "new day," we can start over. always a pleasure. you're always fair. tough but fair. >> let me start with rudy giuliani and trump, that relationship there. a lot of people look to him and say maybe he's a guy who can say things to donald trump, can be a donald trump whisperer to get him back on track when he's off track, if that's in fact the case. it doesn't seem like rudy giuliani thinks donald trump is

doing anything wrong. >> it's important to remember when rudy giuliani first said he was going to vote for donald trump, he wouldn't say he would endorse him. he also said he wouldn't want to be a part of the campaign. that has changed dramatically. giuliani has in the past said things that are critical about what trump has done. i covered giuliani for almost 20 years. i covered most of his second term as mayor of "new york times" and he was really the politician who i most enjoyed covering because in part of all of the reasons that people initially liked trump. he would dou three press conferences a day and he has a long relationship with trump. what you heard in that interview just no in addition to a bunch of things that just weren't true, about the times' coverage,

about what trump said about mccain and the hero thing, you heard a lot of the same kind of hidden hand discussion of sort of, you know, tying a plus b equal z together that you hear from trump that you didn't used to hear a lot from giuliani. it's also really important to remember that giuliani has been sort of mentally running against hillary clinton in one form or another himself since 1999 when the senate matchup in new york that launched her political career was supposed to be against him and he dropped out of that race in 2000. it is important to context earlierize that. >> i don't think you can both be right or maybe you're both wrong and fair and we treat everyone

tough. >> everyone has their point to make on media bias. we don't paint with a broad brush that the entire media is against hillary clinton, but i'll tell you, giuliani tried to cite some surveys. if you do look at the surveys and look at objective, qualifiable evidence, she gets a i harder time than trump. >> that's not what rudy giuliani says. >> i know that. he has his facts wrong. there was a study out of harvard -- >> people complain about the media all the time. do you think it's effective. >> i think it can work politically in certain contexts, sure. i don't think we're making allegations that aren't grounded in reality. i think the right wing has perfected this for 30 years and the base does respond to this notion of liberal media bias. i think it was brilliant when

they started doing that in the 196 1960s. i think we've proven our case that there's a double standard when it comes to the clintons with a lot of media. >> i was hoping you'd declare a truce and say we're all wrong, the media is doing their job right here. andre bauer, how do you think rudy giuliani is as a surrogate for donald trump? >> i think he's fabulous. i thought he did a master million job there. >> rudy giuliani is pro-choice, is pro -- >> we're not talking about giulia giuliani's run for president. donald trump is not supporting rudy giuliani's policies. >> donald trump is a former democrat. it's not like there was a huge amount of daylight between them, especially on issues like

abortion. they're not dissimilar figures and characters. in that way giuliani i think understands trump more than a lot of people around them. >> thanks, guys. it was fascinating to watch and fascinating to watch all of you. we'll be right back. get back to great. this week sharpie singles now twenty-five cents. office depot officemax. gear up for school. gear up for great. ... 83% try to eat healthy. yet up 90% fall short in getting key nutrients from food alone. let's do more. add one a day women's gummies. complete with key nutrients we may need... ...plus it supports bone health with calcium and vitamin d. one a day vitacraves gummies. i'm hillary clinton, and i approve this message. michael hayden: if he governs consistent with some of the things he said as a candidate, i would be very frightened. gillian turner: he's been talking about the option of using a nuclear weapon against our western european allies. max boot: this is not somebody who should be handed the nuclear codes.

charles krauthammer: you have to ask yourself, do i want a person of that temperament controlling the nuclear codes? and as of now, i'd have to say no. [bill o'reilly sighs]

what headache?in?f now, i'd have to say no. what arthritis pain? advil makes pain a distant memory nothing works faster stronger or longer what pain? advil.

california's clean air laws we've cut toxic pollution. we're seeing fewing cases of asthma in kids. and the new clean energy economy has created more than half a million jobs. i'm tom steyer. just when we're making progress, the oil companies are trying to weaken our clean air laws. but we can stop them. send them a message. we're going to protect our kids - not their profits. ♪

>> that does it for us. thanks for watching. time for "cnn tonight" with don lemon. >> donald trump doubling down on an outright light against president obama and hillary clinton. this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. trump claims that isis honors both of them and for this reason -- >> i call president obama and hillary clinton the founders of isis. they're the founders. >> he also says that both would be eligible for the terror group's most valuable player award. clinton says those remarks show trump is not fit to be president. >> and panic in the